The Republic of T.

Didn’t get a nomination. Oh well, that’s nothing new here. Good thing I don’t do this to win awards, otherwise I’d have quit after the first year. Anyway, go check out the Black Weblog Awards finalists, because there are some great bloggers there who deserve some support.

My picks are:

• Best International Blog – Black Looks
• Best LGBT Blog – Keith Boykin
• Best Podcast – Mandrake Society
• Best Political Blog – rod 2.0:beta
• Black Blogger Achievement Award – Keith Boykin

I only voted in the categories where I was familiar with at least one of the blogs nominated, so there are plenty more I still need to check out. (The hardest for me was the LGBT category, because I know all three of the nominated blogs and they’re all great. Would have voted for all of them if I could have.)

My post about the teen sex club at a Texas high school caused quite a discussion over at Street Prophets. One of the commenters thought I was going a bit too far when I turned Pam Stenzel’s “AIDS is not the enemy” schtick around to show the flip side of her logic.

I couldn’t help thinking about that today when I was reading Time To Deliver, the activist blog from the 16th International AIDS conference. In particular, I was stuck by a post in which one activist relates her encounter with HIV-positive ex-gays and posts excerpts from the booklet they were handing out at the conference (and from which I borrowed the title of this post).

It’s called “He Intends Victory: Real-life stories of Christians living with AIDS” by Dan Wooding [Ugh! if only i could wash my hand in the dog poop Divine eats off the sidewalk in Pink Flamingoes! maybe that would clean it!!!].

1-800-HIV-HOPE heintendsvictory.com

The book is evil!!!

p.8 (Herbert Hall) – ”After I was discharged from the hospital, I went through counseling for three years and God completely changed my life,” said Herb, his face now alight with joy. “During those three years, I was completely delivered from the homosexual lifestyle…I fell in love with Pam, this wonderful woman at our church.”

p.104 (Mike Hylton) – “I acquired HIV through blood products. Herb got it through a particular action or accident. Herb and I are not innocent victims. AIDS is a product of sin, not a judgement from God. We must stop categorizing one person’s sin (e.g., homosexuality) and matching it to another’s sin (e.g., lying) and then trying to determine a level of innocence. Let God judge the sinner and the sin….Lying may or may not be as bad as homosexuality. Who’s to judge? Sin is sin!”

p.131 (Renee Austin) — Just as I could not blame God for my being HIV positive, how could I blame Tony? The issue is not whether or not he knew; the issue is I engaged in premarital sex, which is against God’s law.”

I’m not sure why it reminded me of Stenzel’s words, or my reading of them, but it did.

Lauren has resurfaced (yay!) over at Feministe with an interesting post about something I hadn't considered in all the talk about legally recognizing same-sex marriage: the accompanying pressure to marry. It might be something new to gay people, but I hadn't thought about the reality that the social acceptance of same-sex marriage might be a package deal with the social expectation to marry, as it apparently is for heterosexuals.

I’ve been in a solid relationship for about two years now and I’m finding that Chef and I are under considerable pressure to marry. It began awhile back when we talked about the possibility a few times and we discussed our discussions with various folks, never meaning it to take on more weight than, “We talked about the possibility of this a few times.” Suddenly everyone began to freak out, get moony-eyed or squinty-eyed skeptical, and ask when it was going to happen. When? Is it time yet? Yes? Are you guys going to do this? Why the hell are you guys going to do this? My folks began to prod, and his began to plan for grandbabies, and all of a sudden this weird het-marriage-excitement-beast was out of our control, dragging 1000-page bridal magazines behind its vintage white stretch limo (tasteful, of course, not gaudy). Needless to say, it has added stress to the relationship that just doesn’t belong.

… One of my single mom friends noted that her pressure to marry was based on the supposed illigitimacy of everything she did that didn’t have a man attached — and once she got engaged she found that she was on the receiving end of some serious esteem. And resented it. A divorced friend expressed frustration at being expected to date and remarry stat before the social ruin kicked in. My old boss used to complain about his mother constantly asking why he never brought anyone home with him anymore, which was based completely on her frantic questions about whether or not this date was The One. Many people are irritated that they are seen as defective or *gasp* teh gay if they aren’t married by a certain age. Or tire of being grilled by others after living with a partner past some acceptable point on an arbitrary timeline.

Another thing that has come to my attention is the low esteem in which I would be held if I ever had a long-term partner with whom I lived but didn’t marry — say for some reason a parent in this position ended up in custody court, would a common-law partnership be taken as seriously as a bonded legal marriage? What if this person were held up against a married parent?

Interesting questions, and i couldn't help considering them in a different context. Because marriage expectations aren't completely foreign to gays & lesbians, but the context has historically been quite different.

(more…)

I wrote earlier about the suicide prevention service 1.800.SUICIDE being in danger of falling into the Bush administration’s hands, and what the possible outcome of that might be. Well, it looks like they got a reprieve, but the clock is still ticking for 1.800.SUICIDE. The latest news is that they got a two week extension, but time is still running out to save this service before it either rings busy or gets answered by whomever the Bush administration chooses.

I’ll give you a minute to think about who this administration might put on the other end of that line. Take another minute to consider that there’s no precedent for the government taking over a helpline that’s been successfully run by the community with the support (but not control) of the federal government. Given what this administration tends to do with social services — turning them over to their faith-based cronies and proselytizers-for-profit, with precious little oversight— think of what could happen to a host of other helplines (like the National AIDS Hotline or the National Domestic violence Hotline) if 1.800.SUICIDE is the precedent setting case.

Now that you’ve had a minute to think about it, here’s what you can do.

(more…)

I posted last week on Wisconsin’s anti-gay marriage amendment and the controversy that ensued after the state attorney general offered an explanation of the proposed amendment which left it up in the air whether its passage what its passage might mean for domestic partnerships, civil unions and other legal arrangements between same-sex couples and other unmarried couples in Wisconsin. Quite a discussion broke out here as well, centered around whether we should unquestioningly accept the assurances from the supporters of such amendments that they aren’t intended to and won’t affect anything but marriage, or whether at the very least it’s uncertain what effect they will have if and/or until enacted.

Basically, do they overreach or don’t they? Interestingly enough, not even all conservatives agree on that one. John over at Americablog points out that least one conservative radio host thinks the Wisconsin marriage amendment goes too far.

(more…)

One of the drawbacks of being an avid reader is that I always have more books than I have shelf space. One of the drawbacks of being a writer as well as an avid reader is that I’m reluctant to get rid of books if I think there’s a possibility I might want to refer back to them later. At some point it becomes clear to me that I’m in danger of becoming an old man surrounded by piles of moldy books. However the move (and some gentle prodding from the hubby) inspired me to make some hard choices about what stays on the shelves and what has to go. Now instead of piles of books on the floor, I have a box of books in the garage, awaiting their fate.

Every once in a while I try some method of making myself get shed of books I’m unlikely to read or use as references, but they usually peter out after a while. I tried selling books on Amazon Marketplace, but most of them never sold. (I guess my taste in books isn’t entirely mainstream. I tried BookCrossing, but something about leaving my books lying in various places around town and never knowing if they got picked up by another reader or just thrown away didn’t appeal to me.

Then last week I discover BookMooch while sorting through my blog/news feeds.

(more…)

This seemed like an interesting music meme.

Kip over at A Stick Stitch in Haste was holding forth about hearing a truncated version of Billy Joel's "Piano Man" on the radio recently, with several verses and a few important characters missing.

So I'm listening to the radio this morning, and they play Billy Joel's most famous song*, Piano Man. I listen with only one ear as the lyrics progress through the well-known cast of characters:

And he's quick with a joke
or to light up your smoke
But there's someplace that he'd rather be.

And the waitress is practicing politics…

Huh, what? Did the vinyl** skip or something?

Where does John-at-the-Bar want to be?
What happened to Davey, who's still in the Navy?
What happened to Paul the closeted homosexual?***

Then he listed the five longest songs in his iTunes library (not counting live performances). It seems like a potentially interesting music meme, considering how often people probably add to their music collections. So I thought I'd give it a spin. Here's what I got.

(more…)

Yet more news regarding teenagers in Texas. This time, definitely more positive. A new counseling center in Texas is hoping to save say teens from street life by recruiting gay or gay-friendly foster families for gay teens. What caught my eye besides the headline was that the article featured two pictures of a black lesbian teen, Elana Arthur, who’s one of the youth that the counseling center is trying to help.

Elana Arthur inhales smoke, exhales, then explains:

“My mom kicked me out when I was 14 because I was a lesbian.”

Her black hair is cropped short, her eyes serious. Across the street is her latest home: the Covenant House, a Montrose-area youth shelter.

… Blocks from where she stands, smoking on the street corner, a Houston gay advocacy organization has drafted a plan to save youths like Arthur — or like Arthur seven years ago — from the streets.

The idea — to recruit gay and gay-friendly parents to the foster care system — comes amid debates about caregiving by gays and lesbians. At least one state, Florida, outlaws adoption by this segment of the population, and others, including Texas, recently debated stopping them from serving as foster parents.

… Last November, the Montrose Counseling Center, a stronghold in the center of the city’s gay community, sent out a call for gay-friendly foster parents.

The not-for-profit got at least 12 volunteers, five of whom have registered with a private foster care agency working with the center. That agency will train the parents and help pair foster care kids with them, although none have been placed yet.

Unlike other, similar efforts in the nation, this gay-friendly recruitment is coming from outside the state’s child protective agency.

Ann Robison, executive director of the counseling center, said the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services is aware of her organization’s effort, but both sides need a face-to-face meeting to work out logistics. The agency oversees foster care for the state, but it outsources some parent training and recruitment to private organizations.

As much as it inspires hope to hear about something like the Montrose center, I can’t help but remind myself that it is in Texas and it wouldn’t surprise me if Texas’ right wingers oppose it and try to put an end to it if word gets out. Sure enough, a bit further down in the article, there’s a suggestion that just might be in the cards.

(more…)

Texas has a sex club in it. A teenage sex club, that is. And in a high school. But it doesn’t matter.

It’s worth pointing out that while governor of Texas in 1995, George W. Bush signed a law requiring schools in the state to follow abstinence-only education. WIth his entry into the White House, and the advent of Bush’s “faith-based initiative,” abstinence-only education has become a booming business; a profitable business of proselytization, if not prevention. However, if you want to talk results or return on investment, you first have to consider that what’s been going on at one Texas high school doesn’t actually as up to a failure for the abstinence-only movement.

In fact, it doesn’t even matter. It might even lead to an ultimate abstinence-only success. Because success, as we’ll see, is in the eye of the beholder.

(more…)

It’s been an interesting week. I’m still engaged (embroiled?) in a discussion on same-sex marriage with one of the folks sick of it all posted about last week. I’m honestly growing weary of the discussion, because it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. But some interesting things have come of it.

It led me to ask “What right should same-sex couples have?” From there it drifted over to the recent gay exodus out of Virginia as that state nears passage of an amendment that some suggest will even invalidate contracts between same-sex partners. It also bled into discussion of concerns about a similar law in Wisconsin. If I stick with it much longer, it will soon probably lead me to ask another question like the one I asked previously. And it I don’t, it’s given me an insight into how the other side thinks, and how this issue isn’t going to go away anytime soon. It’s all over this week’s news.

(more…)

As long as we’re talking about Virginia’s anti-gay marriage law and proposed amendment, it’s worth noting that it appears to be generating more news beyond the recent gay exodus from the state, as the likely passage of the amendment looms on the horizon. Most recently — and probably in a fashion that we’ll see more often as more states either enact civil unions or domestic partnerships, legalize same-sex marriage, or pass laws and amendments prohibiting all of the above — Virginia’s marriage law went up against Vermont’s civil unions in a custody case between former lesbian partners

Basically, one of them decided she wasn’t lesbian anymore and hightailed it to the most homophobic state she could find, with the couple’s daughter in tow. Then she tried to deny her former partner parental visitation rights. Naturally, a Virginia judge backer her. But the Vermont Supreme Court , in a decision that’s interesting in that it focuses less on whether a state recognizes same-sex unions than on how federal law should apply to the situation, essentially said “No so fast, Virginia.

(more…)

It’s that time again.

1. Start your MP3 Player
2. Randomize your collection
3. Spin the first ten

Here’s mine

1. Sweet Thing from the album “The Very Best of Rufus” by Rufus & Chaka Khan
2. The Long Grift from the album “Hedwig And The Angry Inch” by Various Artists
3. I Love Your Smile from the album “Inner Child” by Shanice
4. Hedwig’s Lament from the album “Hedwig And The Angry Inch” by Various Artists
5. Alright from the album “Ancestry in Progress” by Zap Mama
6. Pon de Replay from the album “Music of the Sun” by Rihanna
7. Superfreak from the album “Funk Classics: The 80′s” by Rick James
8. How Soon Is Now? from the album “Singles” by The Smiths
9. Forbidden Love from the album “Something to Remember” by Madonna
10. Freeek! from the album “Now That’s What I Call Music! 52 (disc 1)” by George Michael

What’d you get?

You knew it was too good to last. The news about Phil Santorum sounds so familiar. Or at least it sounds like an experience that lots of gay men (not your’s truly, mind you) have had at some point or another. You know this guy, and you know he’s not gay. In fact he doesn’t even seem to like gay people. But then suddenly he’s really nice to you when no one else is around. So you think maybe his queer bashing days are in the past, and that this may be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Until his friends find out, that is. Then he totally blows you off.

Less than a week after becoming the 170th member of Congress to affirm that his office does not discriminate in its employment practices based on an individual’s “sexual orientation or gender identity and expression,” U.S. senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, on Wednesday rescinded his signature on a diversity statement.

… On Wednesday, Santorum faxed GenderPAC a new statement that read in part, “To be clear, my office has not adopted the proposed ‘diversity statement’ nor the agenda of your organization…. My name should no longer be reported as having adopted the ‘diversity statement.’”

Just goes to show you, people don’t change. Or they do change, but then they quickly change back. (That’s why I stopped falling for straight guys a long, long time ago.)

Wow. Twice in one week. I swear I’m not paying anybody off at the Washington Post Express, but for the second time this week they’ve picked up a post of mine. This time it’s the most recent post about the “Rapture Ready” crazies who appear to be driving the bus or at least navigating where U.S. Middle East policy is concerned. (Hey, I’m not the only one who thinks so. Kevin Phillips, who knows much more about it than I do, says as much in his book American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury, which I’m almost finished reading.)

Along the same lines, I’ve noticed the Washington Blade’s Blogwatch has also linked to several posts here over the last few months. I think it’s actually Window Media picking up the blog, because the same links show up on blogwatches for the Southern Voice, Houston Voice, and Express Gay News, which is great. It’s always nice to be included.

Anyway, got a busy day and not sure how much I’ll post, but I wanted to share anyway.

I wrote earlier about the rapture enthusiasts who hope for a conflagration in the Middle East (i.e. opposing a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah) and have the ear of the White House when it comes Middle East policy these days.

While the crisis at the Israel-Lebanon border drew more mainstream media attention to CUFI’s activities, Hagee’s supporters have long known that leading Republicans are listening. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, a prominent Jewish ally of the evangelical right (and friend of Jack Abramoff) has said that Hagee “without question, yes, absolutely” has the ear of the White House. Hagee’s annual Night to Honor Israel at his church has drawn prominent Republicans, including Tom DeLay, who was the keynote speaker in 2002.

Well it turns out their influence goes deeper than I imagined, and that they have more than one possible ending in mind.

(more…)

As long as we’re talking about the clarity (or lack thereof) of various anti-gay marriage amendments, it’s worth talking about the dustup over Wisconsin’s proposed amendment. Althouse, point to an article concerning the Wisconsin attorney general’s explanation of the amendment, and how supporters were upset that she explained it at all.

Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager sent two ballot explanations of the gay marriage and death penalty referendums to the state Elections Board Friday, providing the plain English translation that voters will use when they weigh in on the hot-button issues in November.

… Meanwhile, opponents of the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions praised Lautenschlager’s reading of the amendment question for pointing out its uncertain effect on joint benefits for unmarried couples. Supporters said it reflected Lautenschlager’s personal bias against the proposal.

State law requires Lautenschlager to produce the explanations, which matter both because they might influence voters and because they could play a role in later court decisions that involve the intent of the proposal.

… State law limits marriage to a husband and wife. The proposed amendment would constitutionally limit marriage to a man and a woman and ban civil unions and other arrangements for unmarried couples that are “substantially similar” to marriage.

Julaine Appling, who’s heading up the Vote Yes for Marriage coalition supporting the amendment, objected to Lautenschlager’s explanation of the “substantially similar” clause of the measure.

The attorney general’s explanation tells voters that it would be up to courts or the Legislature to determine whether that second clause would affect so- called domestic partner benefits between same-sex and other unmarried couples. Appling said only full-fledged civil unions or “look-alike” marriages would be affected by the measure.

As with Virginia, why should gays in Wisconsin be assured by Julaine Appling’s explanation? Especially when the attorney general’s explanation doesn’t say that the amendment will or won’t affect domestic partner benefits and other legal arrangements, but that it would be left up to the courts and the legislature? The courts are already getting involved in dealing with these over-reaching anti-gay amendments.

(more…)

I’ve been so busy today that when I posted the bit from Washington Post Express I didn’t notice until I read Trey’s post that the Express also posted this bit from a right wing blogger saying the whole thing is much ado about nothing.

It’s not that gays are unwelcome, duh. It’s the homosexuals who want to marry that are unwelcome.

It really bothers me how the media keeps trying to equate anti-homosexual sentiments with anti-gay-marriage sentiments. The two issues are so distinct that it is categorically improper to link them together.

It’s a complete scare tactic to suggest that the amendment will be used to invalidate individual contracts providing for some of the incidents of marriage.

As I pointed out before, legal experts can’t even agree on this one. Plus, the only similar scenario to the one looming in Virginia doesn’t suggest a positive outcome

(more…)

Looks like the Washington Post Express picked up the post on Virginia’s gay exodus.

I’ve blogged about gay people getting out of Virginia before, but it seems what started as a trickle late last year is growing into full fledged exodus as gays leave Virginia in greater numbers, fearing the consequences of a state constitutional amendment that goes far beyond merely banning same sex marriages.

Twenty states have amended their constitution to ban same-sex marriage since 2004. Virginia state legislators passed a law two years ago that prohibits “civil unions, partnership contracts or other arrangements between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage.” A proposed constitutional amendment, which will go to voters in November, excludes any “unmarried individuals” from “union, partnership or other legal status similar to marriage.”

Many gay people in Virginia and some family-law attorneys say they worry that the state law and proposed amendment are more far-reaching than simple bans on gay marriage — that the measures could threaten the legal viability of the contracts used by gay couples to share ownership of property and businesses.

The exact effects are unclear, and the 2004 law remains untested, but some gays say they fear the laws could affect their ability to own homes together; to draft powers of attorney, adoption papers or wills; or to arrange for hospital visitation or health surrogacy.

Married people get these rights automatically through long-established common law; gay people use legal documents to ensure they can leave their property at death to their partner or allow their partner, rather than the patient’s birth family, to make end-of-life decisions for them. Some gay people worry that hostile family members could use the language in the laws to seize their possessions or take custody of their children if they could prove the couple had a relationship that illegally approximated a marriage.

Can anyone blame them?

(more…)

One of the things I love about where I live are the political bumper stickers and t-shirts I see. (Democratic outnumbers Republican by 3 to 1 as near as I can tell.) This “Republicans for Voldemort” sticker has to be the funniest I’ve seen yet. Get yours here!